Horror of Abortion!

Post Reply New Topic

Some interesting abortion related news stories

Key documents in Planned Parenthood criminal trial destroyed:
http://onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1464642

PepsiCo Shareholders protesting use of aborted fetal cell lines in product testing.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6494418088.html

Workers at ‘House of Horrors’ abortion clinic plead guilty to murder
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaki ... -to-murder

Since the ratios are more toward anti-abortion supports right to circumcision, renaming abortion clinics to prenatal circumcision clinics will solve both conflicts.

Then blame some God for being both careless and dangerous.

Tadzio

wow what a nice lump of pure propaganda, comrade.

The first one, a trial delay due to missing records, not very exciting. Even if it is a case of deliberately destroying evidence, this relatively tiny and isolated incident has nothing to do with larger argument of abortion in general.

The second - ! That's absolutely vile. "Children of God for Life announced today the filing of a shareholder resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission and PepsiCo on the use of aborted fetal cell line HEK-293 (human embryonic kidney) for the research and development of flavor enhancers for their beverages." Flavor enhancers?! That's beyond wrong and disgusting. I think I'll be avoiding Pepsi products when possible from now on. But still, has little to do with pro-choice vs. pro-life. I think most pro-choice people would be against this too, even if just for aesthetic reasons.

The third, this was a local story for me and I'm quite familiar with it. Nothing that happened there was legal so this in no way detracts from an argument for legal abortions. If anything, we'd have more of this to look forward to if abortion were to become illegal.

It has a human genome. In its early stages of development it is NOT a human person. It does not have the equipment to be a person.

Tell me, son. Is an acorn an oak tree?

ruveyn

I have already explained why I think human consciousness is the only trait we can exclusively use to define a human being as it is not present in other animals or plants or human cells that we agree are not human beings.

You have mentioned many alternatives on how to define a human being and they were all very poor. Life itself is very common. Heart beating is definitely not exclusive to human beings. Neither is human DNA. Nor having humanoid shape. Electrical pulses in nerve cells are not either.

Common law in our occidental world protects not life per se, but people life. I don't have the government chasing me for the mass murdering of a ton of flies or chicken. I have never stated that a fetus is not alive, but as mentioned, life itself doesn't mean legal or moral protection in our culture.

As for consciousness, I have already proven that it is simply impossible for a fetus to be considered to have human consciousness in early (20 weeks) stage. The number of weeks at which it becomes a human being may as well be larger, but 20 weeks is a good sounding number. Early abortions are safer and less messier anyway, so let's make it legal for such time frame, it is only logical.

In fact, this model of making only early (20 weeks) abortion legal will protect us from killing human beings as it will promote abortions to happen in early stages - before they become human.

Also, other people have argued , and I agree, that even if the fetus was a human being, it is not a super human being with ultra-rights that surpass the rights of other people. No human being has the right of forcing another human being to spend her body for his life. I think this argument is sound and you have not come even close to debunking it . But I don't like it because it is not necessary, as early fetus is certainly not deserving of the title "person" or "human being", that discussion is not necessary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/clinic-worker-says-shell-plead-guilty-to-3rd-degree-murder-in-philly-abortion-clinic-case/2011/10/27/gIQANtXMMM_story.html

Abortion workers plead guilty to murder. I haven't read it yet, but the headline I originally saw for this story said that the murder charges were related to post-birth abortion. C'mon, it's the same baby whether it's in or out of the birth canal by a few seconds. Where have we gotten to as a society when killing babies is considered murder? It's THE SAME BABY, regardless of WHERE it is. I guess it's true what they say: "Location, location, location."

@ Vexcalibur

There has been much said in this thread that should give you pause before you deliver you pontifical statements relating to consciousness. I have zero intention of going over the same ground with you again and again. Many posters have made valid points that are well worth reading; you just dismiss them a priori. It is pretty clear that you have made your mind up on the matter.

I would have treat your statements with more credibility if you actually agreed that if one could establish consciousness as an objective standard that after this point the child had a fundamental right to life. Even then you clarify that this standard has no meaning for you; because even then the right to life, the foundational right, does not move you enough to say a woman does not have the right to terminate the pregnancy even then. So after long posts from yourself you have set up a standard that you have no intention of defending. So the first five paragraphs of your post amount to little more than an exercise obscurantism.

It amazes me that this thread is still alive and kicking

in the end that question would be mute as oddly enough viability of the fetus outisde the mother coincides with the period where consciousness can start to form.

Now you know why we were annoyed with you for bringing it up. The same points are argued and ignored over and over again.

Consciousness and viability are simply signposts along the road of life taken by all individual human lives. A human being is objectively defined by neither. Human beings and their lives are intrinsically valuable; they require no justification for their existence. Using consciousness as the standard of human life is so full of holes as to be barley entertainable by a thinking person. It would have us accept one of three options; that a, a human being who is in an artificially induced coma has no right to come out of it. Or that those with less developed brains possess significantly less right to life than those whose brains are whole or finally that a child has less right to life than an adult. I would contend that the pro-choice position implies that one has already embraced the third option... at which I have no time for your argument because it is at odds with any conception of intrinsic human worth. Each of these standards fails when applied to adults in similar circumstances hence you engaging in a fallacy of special pleading.

True but as the Joker it is my job to cause such Chaos

Stirring the pot is an art form that you have not yet mastered.

I do a pretty good job at stirring the pot even if I haven't mastered it yet

It's important to distinguish the legal, the moral and the ethical issues.

In Canada, for example, an infant is not a legal person until it has passed, in a living state, entirely from the body of its mother. One of the most important reasons for this is for the protection of obstetricians and midwives. We can all recognize that prenatal and natal care is an essential medical or paramedical service, and that people should be encouraged to use their education as physicians, nurses and midwives to provide care to pregnant and delivering women and to the infants to which they give birth. Conferring legal personality on a unborn child significantly complicates the legal protection for these essential services.

Now even if there is a legal distinction about when an infant becomes a legal person, that does not impact the ethical debate about how, when and whether the life of a human foetus should be protected, or the moral debate about the value and sanctity of foetal life.

So, yes, it's the same baby regardless of whether it's in or out of the birth canal--but legally that is the distinguishing element that sets down when legal rights crystallize.